Another Monday, another batch of very cool old press photos from David Greenlees. Where last week’s photos followed a streamlining theme, this week’s photos depict very early alternative-fuel concept vehicles from GM. First, above, a photo from May 7, 1969, depicting a bunch of techs installing a four-cylinder engine into a 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix. Yes, four-cylinder. The caption on the back elaborates:

General Motors researchers install the combustion system-steam generator in the first modern steam car developed by the automobile industry. The experimental vehicle – called the GM SE-101 – is a modified 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix. Already mounted in the engine compartment is the 160 horsepower, 4-cylinder expander. The SE-101 is one of two steam-powered vehicles shown to the press at the GM Progress of Power show and was developed by GM Research Laboratories to permit evaluation of the vapor cycle engine under actual operating conditions.

From other resources, we see that this was allegedly the first steam-powered vehicle with a complete set of power accessories, including air conditioning, thus making it more feasible for modern vehicles. We also see that the steam engine could run on any atomized fuel, making it a multi-fuel engine capable of running on diesel, kerosene or gasoline, and that it was backed up by the experimental 250-TT toric transmission. What prevented further development of the SE-101 were the size and weight of the steam powerplant (450 pounds heavier than the V-8 engine it replaced at less than half the horsepower), less-than-ideal water consumption from a too-small water condenser, and the likelihood of freezing.

As for the other steam-powered vehicle presented with the SE-101, we believe that was the SE-124 1969 Chevelle, fitted with a Besler Developments steam engine. Both were profiled in the July 1969 issue of Popular Science by frequent SIA contributors Norbye and Dunne.

The other photo shows an uncommon view of the Firebird III as it received its 225hp Whirlfire Gas Turbine engine. The photo dates to September 14, 1958, and also shows a rare glimpse of the interior structure of the Firebird III before its titanium body panels were attached.

32 Responses to “Who killed the (steam/turbine-powered) car?”

I just came back from a visit to the GM Heritage Center this past weekend. All three Firebird turbine cars were on display as well as an all-electric Corvair sedan and a hydrogen fuel cell van from the mid-’60′s. In those days, GM was truly on the cutting edge automotive technology.

The turbine car killed itself. Due to the constant high RPM necessary for operation, city fuel economy is inherently abysmal. At best, this would have come out like the rotary has for Mazda, a fun niche market high performance gimmick but totally unsuitable for volume production family cars. As for the steam engine, if the Otto cycle engine had never been perfected we would probably all be driving some kind of steam car now. But reality is the Otto cycle and Diesel engines do the same job with a lot less fuss and bother.

Just Google Cyclone Power for a present-day approach to steam; their light-weight, omnivorous and compact little engines would seem to be novel, efficient and worthy replacements for the archaic otto-cycle booster engines planned for the hybrid-likes of the Chevy Volt, etc.

Volvo solved the problem but now how to reduced parts weight . To start with its hybrid free turbine engine , compressor combustion chamber pressure turbine air gap power turbine and currently complex system to connect power turbine to compressor , lots of gears and stuff , added weight . In the future cars , for now trucks due to complex system . A simple strong C V Transmission like stuff to reduce weight . Almost lift with bare hand light weight turbine engine plus the same C V T to power wheels

GM has forgotten more technical advances for cars than other companies have ever discovered. Cars are what they are today because of GM Ford and Chrysler. All the other car companies in the world just copied what was produced by the big 3 anyway. If our government did a better job of protecting this country and its citizens and not give our auto industry to foreign companies we would all be better of in these United States.

Giving our industries away is just the way our government exports Capitalism. World domination through consumption – very clever, eh?

Who wants to be protected from that?

This just in – Tesla and Toyota have teamed-up to produce Tesla’s electric sedan in the former Numi plant in Fremont CA.

Let’s see, my old Checker Marathon gets about 10 city and 15 highway (yes, it’s the straight 6). Can I drive that thing for the rest of my life and create less pollution than is produced when making just one electric car? (or just one set of batteries?)

Finally, someone who seees the entire stream, not just the finished product rolling down the highway. There is far too much “front end loading” of the polution problem just to create a “feel good” product for consumers.

Dick – you are absolutely right. If people (and politicians) looked at the whole chain they would get rid of ethanol, as it takes more oil to produce ethanol than ethanol saves when burned in cars. (Methanol would be better. If it would be better than not using alcohol at all I don’t know)
I am also wondering if the hybrids of today are correctly optimized. They all seem too heavy to me – and nobody is counting the energy used in building these complicated cars

Chrysler had the better of all the gas turbines.They made one in 1964 and then again in 1970.Think they were ahead of their time on the efficiency and the engineering of the turbine.Of course everyone knows that all the Top Fuel Cars have the Basic Hemi
Block that has lasted forever.What a monster engine block!

“Toric” means toroidal, so it was an early continuously variable transmission. GMRL had patents on CVTs back into the 1930s (possibly the 1920s), with a Buick proposal to adopt a dual toric drive in 1937. A toric drive transfers power through two or more curved surfaces instead of gears (think pinch-roller). The greatest challenge with them is lubrication.

I found only one reference to the 250-TT, that in a Johns Hopkins Univ. Applied Physics Laboratory report dated 3/72 in which GMRL had been visited, Paul Vickers stating 275hp, 800 ft-lb, 7 or 8:1 range, and 92% usable efficiency. The 250-TT was also used in the RTX bus.

While a number of promising alternative engine types have been worked up over the years, there seems to be three main roadblocks to actually using them in production:

1. Cost of building/maintaining the engine in everyday use compared to the conventional internal combustion engine.
2. Cost of fuel needed and availability of the fuel in all parts of the country.
3. Long-term viability (such as emissions requirements).

A good example is the the Chrysler Turbine Car project of the 1960′s. I knew that there was a price differential between the turbine and a conventional engine but never knew it was around $4,000 until I read the HEMMINGS story about the car. There are all kinds of fits if the price differential is only a few hundred dollars. The other part of the problem on the turbine was that it could run on a number of different fuels (many of them more expensive than gas was at the time) and each fuel produced different emission characteristics which could cause problems with EPA regulation.

Notice that the steam-powered Grand Prix has grilles surrounding the headlights, where a stock GP has solid, stamped steel. Did the steam engine need more underhoold airflow, or was this just to make it look distinctive (as if all that stuff sticking out of the hood wasn’t enough)?

The condenser was three times larger that GP radiator so bigger fans (2) and more air , plus space for small AC stuff . GM was out to prove steam was not the IT . Dual boilers one for stop and go , two for freeway . A modified 4 cylinder boat motor mated to beefed up GP automatic transmission . Three times the weight of GP package . 5 mpg freeway . Lear did little better with steam turbine mated to automatic transmission. more MPG than GP engine . Both units suffered wasted heat out the tail pipe .

Any chance of doing an article on the Rover gas turbine work from the early sixties? I remember the Rover BRM being pretty impressive at Le Mans, they improved the economy with heat recovery kit from Corning Glass but still had trouble with the lag on acceleration. The Steam Automobile Club of America SACA has a lot of info on the Lear steam project , not much of it very complimentary as it seems Lear himself was no engineer and surrounded himself with bootlickers.

In my humble opinion, CNG [compressed natural gas] is the way to go. No emissions, clean burning for a LONG engine life,etc.. Of course, some cluck would figure out some way to blow himself [and maybe others] up while “refueling”. But, there have been many safeguards developed to ward this off from what i’ve read….

…AS A YOUNG MAN WORKING FOR DEALERSHIPS IN THE CHGO AREA, I WAS ALWAYS GIVEN THE CHANCE TO GO TO `GM TRIANING SCHOOL` IN HINSDALE, ILL…OGDEN AVE…I MET A VERY INTELLIGENT GM TECH TEACHER WHO TOLD ME A LOT OF HISTORY..THE LONG NOSE MONTE CARLO, PONTIAC GP, ETC..WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING A V-10, TO FIT INTO THE FUTURE, REPL THE SBC, BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED…THX HEMMINGS!..